Is It Time for Federal Reciprocity of Concealed Carry Permits?

[WhiteFeather]

Moderator IF someone else already posted this excellent article please zap this.

As a side note WE would like to re write the PA LTCF permit process in the upcoming legislation session for PA. Propose a two tier system. one as it now with some modification to the current system (sheriff issues problems) keeping the LTCF permits for Reciprocity with other states purposes Only, and the other one would be for the removal of all LTCF permits requirements(transportation / possession) for people that are not prohibited person to carry in state "a Vermont style carrying system" or simiply to return PA to pre 1932 license requirements. Also have stiff mandatory sentence for any prohibited person for possession / carrying of firearms in PA.

Note the state issused license requirements in article.


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27906

Is It Time for Federal Reciprocity of Concealed Carry Permits?

Like a lot of people down here in Texas, I keep a gun close at hand. This usually means one in my vehicle and one on my person. I’ve kept one in my vehicle for nearly two decades and one on my person since 1998, when I got my first concealed carry permit. It’s hard to beat the protection that my concealed carry permit affords my family and friends, even if they aren’t armed. The fact that I am armed means they are safer when with me whether they realize it or not; and everything from annual FBI crime numbers to state-by-state statistics prove this to be so.

However, when I drive outside the borders of Texas, I have to be careful. In many other states, I cannot keep a loaded gun in the car, and, in some states, I cannot even have my handgun on my person (although I have a Texas license to do so). As a matter of fact, there is such a lack of uniformity amongst the states with concealed carry permits that I cannot even carry my handgun in every state that offers concealed permits to its citizens. This means that when I drive into certain states that offer concealed carry licenses to their citizens but don’t recognize the Texas license as valid within their borders, I actually have to unload my gun and lock it in my trunk to be legal.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself this hard question -- how many criminals give their victims time to open the trunk, grab and load their guns before continuing to attack them? Don’t think too hard on that one. You know the answer is “none.”

To remedy this illogical scenario, the NRA pushed a federal concealed carry law which seemed to gather a lot of steam early, only to have support among congressmen and congresswomen wane. I think it’s high time we put our voices and our energy behind this effort and let congress know we want to see such a law passed pronto.

There are at least two strong justifications for national reciprocity. The first springs from the Second Amendment itself, where we read that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” With these words, our Founders were hedging in a natural right and thus placing it off limits from federal or state government interference. Moreover, as Justice Antonin Scalia rightly concluded in the Heller case, our Founders did not want a city government -- such as San Francisco, Chicago, or D.C. -- to infringe upon it either. No government constructed by man has the right to deny us the rights that are ours by way of birth.

In other words, laws or policies that infringe upon our natural rights are wrong whether those laws or policies emanate from the President, the Congress, the court system, a state government, or the San Francisco City Council. Our Founders gave no government a veto over natural rights. This is why Ted Nugent is quick and accurate in saying he “has a concealed carry permit called the Second Amendment.”

Government-issued laws that limit our right to keep and bear arms are infringements on natural law itself. Like the Supreme Court said in the Heller decision, natural rights are preserved by the Constitution, and the right to self-defense is a natural right. It’s our right as humans, not something the government granted us out of its good grace.

And because laws that restrict natural rights are in violation of natural law, they are unethical. What could be more unethical than to ban the possession of a weapon that a woman could use to fend off a would-be rapist when it is a given that the rapist, who possesses a criminal mind, will certainly also be in possession of a criminal weapon?

Now approach the problem from a completely different angle -- the fact that some states recognize the concealed carry licenses of certain states but not of others is confounded stupidity. Think about this: Oregon issues concealed carry licenses to citizens in its state and recognizes the concealed carry licenses of states that border Oregon, but if I drive to Oregon, I cannot conceal and carry my handgun because they do not recognize the Texas license. The silly thing about this is that a central part of the Oregon licensing process is an FBI criminal background check and this is also a central part of the Texas licensing process. A federal bureau ultimately decides who does and who doesn’t get a concealed carry license in both states, yet the states share no reciprocity regarding the licenses themselves. This is simply too arbitrary to be rational, and it is a perfect example of the illogical, liberal mind.

In an ideal world, if you are old enough to buy a handgun, you should be permitted to carry it; regardless of your city or state residence.

This point is essential: other state-granted licenses -- marriage licenses, drivers’ licenses and such -- are recognized by every state regardless of their origin. The Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause mandates that. So why should Massachusetts invite gay couples to go there to marry, confident that other states will have to honor those marriages, when I can’t take my handgun into Massachusetts with my Texas license?

Consider the example of the woman fending off rapist once more, but add something else into the mix: she has a concealed carry license from state “A” which is not recognized in state “B,” although both states depend upon the FBI for ultimate validation of their licenses. Think of her at a red light, listening to the radio in her car, thinking about how nice it will feel to get to the hotel and relax when suddenly her passenger’s door is jerked open, a thug jumps in who says he has a gun, and orders her to pull over and undress. She has no recourse, because her gun is locked in the trunk. In an instant, the unethical laws concerning concealed carry reciprocity contribute to immorality because a given state has mandated that the woman remain defenseless.

The inherent weaknesses of concealed carry laws that aren’t uniform are the same weaknesses that are characteristic of every part of the liberal agenda. The promise made to us is “peace and safety,” yet liberals lack the power to bring about either while denying us the one thing that could do both: the freedom to exercise our natural rights.

As a conservative, I hold state’s rights in the highest regard and believe that federal intrusion on state issues has only diminished the level of real self-government in this country (we saw this clearly with abortion in Roe vs. Wade). In truth, I abhor federal intrusion. But in the case of concealed carry licenses, it is already a federal issue; for it is ultimately the federal government, not the states, that decides who will and who will not receive a permit through the work of the FBI.

Therefore, why not push them to go all the way and mandate uniformity in reciprocity that accords with the tenets of the 2nd Amendment? Were this to happen, the woman at the stoplight would still make it back to the hotel for a relaxing night and a call home to say goodnight to her children, even if she had to kill an attacker to do it.

[joe15003]

good read...rep your way

[mjfletcher]

While I believe they should be reciprical nationwide, i question the wisdom of doing so through the federal government or the constitution. My reasoning is simple, Article IV Section I (Full faith and credit clause) of the Constitution reads:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Do we really want to grant Congress the authority to dictate the terms of nationwide reciprocity? Imagine if Obama, who's stated hes completely against concealed carry, wins the White House. What would it take for him to sign legislation mandating 50 state reciprocity? With Dems in control of Congress, he'd get it.

I would much rather see it take the route of the Supreme Court. While the USSC cannot force states to allow carry, OC or CC without trampling on states rights, they could mandate reciprocity by states that allow carry to recognize the licenses of other states.

[adymond]

That is a great point about congress. I have been trying to figure out how it would work going any other route. Though does congress have any say over marriage licenses or driver's licenses? What is the legislation behind those?

[Statkowski]

Yes, licenses as such are an abomination, but that's a separate issue.

What's at issue here is whether the federal government has any constitutionally-granted authority to force one sovereign state of the union to accept another sovereign state's license as its own. In my opinion, it does not.

A Massachusetts same-sex marriage is not accepted in Arkansas, and the federal government can do nothing about it.

A doctor licensed to practice medicine in Ohio cannot just move to Oregon and set up shop - he/she has to first obtain an Oregon license and meet their licensing criteria. Missed out on two semesters of advanced ingrown toenail treatment? Sorry, the federal government can do nothing about it.

What about those two backward states that do not permit carrying a concealed firearm and offer no licenses with which to do so? And those other restrictive states that have licenses but never, ever issue them?

Keep the federal government's hands out, lest they screw things up more than they already are.

[TonyF]

Is it time?

Whatever the mechanism, it's long overdue.

[edstephan]

It would be a kin to the Real ID mandate for the Fed to force Reciprocity.
Ed

[Wild Bill Klinton]

Yes, licenses as such are an abomination, but that's a separate issue.

What's at issue here is whether the federal government has any constitutionally-granted authority to force one sovereign state of the union to accept another sovereign state's license as its own. In my opinion, it does not.

A Massachusetts same-sex marriage is not accepted in Arkansas, and the federal government can do nothing about it.

A doctor licensed to practice medicine in Ohio cannot just move to Oregon and set up shop - he/she has to first obtain an Oregon license and meet their licensing criteria. Missed out on two semesters of advanced ingrown toenail treatment? Sorry, the federal government can do nothing about it.

What about those two backward states that do not permit carrying a concealed firearm and offer no licenses with which to do so? And those other restrictive states that have licenses but never, ever issue them?

Keep the federal government's hands out, lest they screw things up more than they already are.

What you said +100%

Every time congress meets it cost me money. I f it were up to me, congress would meet (1) once a year to pass a budget. The senate would meet (1) week to pass a budget and do foreign and OK judges.

[CCinPA]

Very good read but with the upcoming elections I feel something like this is going to be a bigger challenge than it would be under the current administration.

Lets face it neither McCain or Obamma want us to have firearms, PERIOD!